The Error of KJV-Onlyism

You having NO evidence for your satanic change... And EVERY manuscript supporting the KJV is irrelevant?
EVERY HEBREW MANUSCRIPT IN THE WORLD SAYS THE KJV IS CORRECT!!! Not ONE has your reading!

The fact that not even ONE Hebrew manuscript in the HISTORY of the world has EVER said what you wish the Bible said... You call that Irrelevant?

The fact that NO ONE ever had issues with 2 Chronicles 22.... NO one had any issues because when they read 2 kings 8 they read 2 kings 9 next...

That is irrelevant?

You ignore and LIE about all the internal evidence, so now I go to the external.

Bring one Hebrew Manuscript that says Ahaziah was 22 years old in 2 Chronicles 22.... And I will forever hold my peace.
BRING ONE!
Note: 2 Cor 13:1 says mouth of 2-3 witnesses let a thing be established... All I am asking for is ONE.
Where is your proof?
YOU HAVE NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE! You change the bible based on what YOU wish God would have said, not based on ANY evidence.
And remember THIS IS YOUR hand picked leading evidence to show the KJV is wrong... This is what YOU chose as your evidence... Not my fault you have no manuscripts and the internal evidence proved you wrong.

1. The KJV is not Middle English, it's Early Modern English.

2. Every book, every single book, has language within it that is FIXED, and UNCHANGING... once it is finalized and published.
a. Language constantly changes, but the language in ANY particular book is unchanging, and becomes "affixed" to the language
and grammar of it's own particular time.
b. This is not some magical property of the KJV - every book "fixes" language to it's own particular time and place once it's completed.

Conclusion:
I love reading the KJV.
But no matter how much I love the majesty and meter of the KJV...
that's not enough to turn bad arguments into good arguments.

Have a great weekend.

I think "Middle English" is the common-use term used today.

I did some research...



"I stand corrected."

Apparently - "officially" - the transition from 'Middle English' to 'Early Modern English' was before the Shakespearean era and the original KJV translation and not after.

For some reason, I was under the impression that that era was part of the 'Middle English' period and not the 'Early Modern English' period.

In other words, I was thinking it was in late 'Middle English' instead of early 'Early Modern English'.

My apologies to anyone who may have been confused by my error.

In the hope this discussion continues.

What are our thoughts as a community and as related to the 1611 KJV with the Apocrypha?

Yet, not all Bibles say precisely the same thing. Many of your modern Bibles have heretical teachings and truths within them. This would include your NIV, NASB, ESV, etcetera.

You can see a small sampling of the changed doctrines that are for the worse and not for the better starting back in my post #1,777.
I currently have 50 plus changed doctrines in Modern Bibles that are very serious. But in this thread I just list 25 of them (to give you a taste of the corruption involved).



They are wrong not only because of the many false doctrines and truths contained within them but because there is no settled text in the Modern Bible Movement and because there are heretics who have influenced the texts by their false beliefs.

For example: George Vance Smith worked on the first Modern English Translation with Westcott and Hort. He was a Unitarian and he wrote a book called “Texts and Margines of the Revised New Testament.” In this book, he wrote of his celebration of changes in the RV that favor Unitarianism. In fact, Sinaiticus is still visited today by Unitarians because they see that manuscript as a huge success for their movement. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the NT Greek manuscripts that are used for most of your modern Translations in the Modern Bible Movement. In fact, folks in the modern Bible Movement are following a never before seen sham-wow artificial text because they smashed these two manuscripts together that disagree with each other in thousands of places in the gospels alone.



What Bible are you comparing the KJV to?
The KJV is the Bible we have today because there are no perfect sets of copies of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.



But the problem is that Modern Translations water down the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
Micah 5:2 in the ESV says that Jesus has a beginning. Meaning, it is claiming He is not eternally God.
The NLT claims that Jesus did not have divine powers of His own during His earthly ministry in Philippians 2:7.



When the Revised Version came out, it took the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 to fill in the place of the Comma in 1 John 5:7. However, eventually, modern Translations took certain words (slightly reworded) in 1 John 5:8 to replace the Comma in 1 John 5:7. This was obvious done intentionally and deceptively. This was no accident. The modernists did not want folks to let the new reader be aware that there was a missing verse on the Trinity with a big plank spot for 1 John 5:7.



Only Modernists make attacks against King James in order to try and falsely discredit the KJV.



The Catholics primarily used Jerome’s Latin Vulgate since the mid 4th century until the 16th/17th centuries. The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582 NT) (1610 OT) was the go-to English translation for hundreds of years. It wasn’t until the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 came out that the Catholic Church started to shift more towards ecumenical translations.

I did a study, and the Revised Version teaches Catholic ideas and these ideas only grow in number with later Modern Bibles. The KJV does not have this problem. In fact, Carlo Maria Martini worked on the critical text used for Modern Bibles in the 1970s. In fact, in the 70s, there was a Catholic Bible that had a dictionary in it that forbid the Catholic lay person in reading the KJV. You can check that out here:


Granted, this has changed today. The Catholic Church now has a Catholic version of the KJV with its apocryphal books inserted within it. But the point here is that they tried to ban their own people in reading the KJV because they seen it as a threat.


…..

You probably already got the alert if you are a subscriber.
Just in case you need to know, there's a new King James Research Council Conference coming up.



Back to work...later

My issue with kjvo is discounting EVERY other translation after it.

I only use the KJV, my church is KJVO..but I would be prepared to use another accurate translation.

I know the njkv isn't really the kjv with more up to date English..because it is from using the Westcort and Hort sources ..which would make it suspect.

I know the same issue is with the niv..esv..nasb etc..using the Westcort and Hort source.

But there must be others that use the majority text that are accurate.

My issue with kjvo is discounting EVERY other translation after it.

I only use the KJV, my church is KJVO..but I would be prepared to use another accurate translation.

I know the njkv isn't really the kjv with more up to date English..because it is from using the Westcort and Hort sources ..which would make it suspect.

I know the same issue is with the niv..esv..nasb etc..using the Westcort and Hort source.

But there must be others that use the majority text that are accurate.

I know we've talked about this time and again, but you got to admit that more people have gotten in church by reading or hearing the KJV over the last 400 years than any other version. I'm sure a lot heard the Geneva as well, but the huge population growth of the 20th century heard mostly KJV.

You're assuming that the majority of new Christians over the last 400 years read and spoke English. I suggest you do some more homework on that subject.

Well, I mean in the english speaking world.

I know we've talked about this time and again, but you got to admit that more people have gotten in church by reading or hearing the KJV over the last 400 years than any other version. I'm sure a lot heard the Geneva as well, but the huge population growth of the 20th century heard mostly KJV.